Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What is personalities toward the President, just for a point of clarification? Personal attacks, perhaps?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The issue here of negotiating with terrorists misses the fact that this happened on the battlefield. The five Taliban commanders were captured on the battlefield, as was Bowe Bergdahl. This was a prisoner exchange, as has happened in every war that we have fought. Now, it is a slightly different situation because it is the Taliban who are now out of power. We are not actually fighting a government at this point. We are fighting a group of insurgents, but nonetheless, Bowe Bergdahl was captured on the field of battle, as were the five Taliban commanders, and this was a prisoner exchange. To equate this with negotiating with terrorists I think totally misses the point of that aspect of it, that we were exchanging prisoners, not dealing with a straight terrorist situation. I don't think it sets that precedent at all, and I think we need to be aware that that was what the President was facing. Was the exchange a good deal? That is highly debatable. I am glad I wasn't the Commander in Chief having to make that call, facing the deteriorating health of Bowe Bergdahl and wondering if five Taliban prisoners were worth saving his life, but these sorts of decisions are made all the time. I would remind you that Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, no shrinking violet when it comes to terrorism, once exchanged over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for two Israel soldiers because that was a prisoner exchange. That was bringing home the people that Israel wanted brought home, and it was not easy. So this is not simply a matter of negotiating with terrorists or giving away prisoners. It is the difficult choice of what you do to bring your own soldier home, a difficult choice that every President or Prime Minister whose country is engaged in warfare has to face. I don't think we should diminish the difficulty or the importance of that decision. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. On the last point about the people who were noticed how long this was going on for, yes, the negotiations were going on for around 3 years, but the timeliness came in when they actually had a deal. The President's concern was once they got to the point where they had the deal, if the details of it had been leaked, it would have nixed the deal. And they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health. As I have said, this is an extraordinarily difficult call. I don't know if I would have done this deal or not. It is hard. The Commander in Chief has that responsibility. As I have mentioned, other leaders through the world have done it, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who gave up over a thousand prisoners in exchange for two Israeli soldiers. Those choices are difficult, and I am certain that those thousand Palestinians that were released posed some risk to Israel, but that is the decision they made. And that is the decision the President made. This resolution is not primarily about whether or not the deal should have been done; it is about whether or not we should condemn the President for a clear violation of the law. And I will simply come back to the fact that this President has only done what every other President before him did in exercising his article II authority--under his interpretation and every previous Executive's--that this was legal. It has been implied throughout this resolution that the President looked at the law and said: I'm just not going to follow it. That is not what he did. He did what every President before him has done. He said that he believed it was within his legal authority to make this decision. So to put forward a resolution that said he intentionally broke the law, I think, is wrong on its face. This President made a determination about his article II authorities and went forward with it. He did not knowingly violate the law. Secretary Hagel has explained that repeatedly. Again, I said it a little while ago that President Bush did the exact same thing. He violated any number of different laws and said that article II is the reason. We have been told: Well, that was years ago. I don't know what we would have done then. I have offered up the opportunity for anybody on the other side to as roundly criticize and condemn President Bush for those actions now that we are here. I haven't heard it. It hasn't been said. All of which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that this is more partisan than principled. This President is the one who is being condemned by a Republican Congress. All the other Presidents have done it and it is just: Oh, we are just not going to do anything about that. That leads to the belief that this is a partisan action. I think Congress should comment on this. We had great hearings on this. We should have had a hearing on this. We brought in Secretary Hagel. He explained himself. We criticized some of those decisions. That is appropriate. This resolution is unprecedented and I think once again shows that this body has become more partisan than principled. I urge everyone to reject the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to respond quickly. First of all, the GAO study specifically said they didn't address the constitutional issue; they didn't address article II. They simply said on the plain reading of the statute, 30 days' notice was required and 30 days' notice wasn't given, which, by the way, didn't take a GAO study to figure out. That is very plain. The statute itself is really not in question nor that the President didn't give the notice required. The question is one that we have had repeatedly as to when the President has the authority under his article II authority to go in a different direction of the statute. As was mentioned, that happened many times, most recently with George W. Bush, a warrant with wire tapping and indefinite detention and a number of other issues. That's number 1. The GAO did not comment on that specific issue. The second thing I would say is we are not really arguing that two wrongs make a right. We are arguing about whether or not it was wrong in the first place. All right? I still haven't heard anyone stand up on the other side who supports this issue and say: Gosh, we missed an opportunity. President George W. Bush was absolutely wrong to have taken those actions that he did and contrary to statute and did something that was illegal, and we are very mad about that. As long as we are talking about it, we should mention the fact that--so I haven't heard anyone say that, because I think the implication is, on that side, they didn't think it was wrong. And that is the issue: Is it wrong for the President to do something that he believes is in the national security interest of the country under his article II authority? I think most people would say: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is a debatable issue. It is not a matter of saying two wrongs make a right. It is a matter of arguing whether or not it was wrong in the first place. And consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, as the saying goes, but there certainly is enough inconsistency on this issue to make people believe this is more partisan motivated than it is purely policy and conscience motivated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are two issues important to this piece of legislation. The first that the chairman mentioned is the legality of this. However, he is wrong in the idea in saying that this is clear on its face and there is no debate. There is actually considerable debate as to whether or not the President's actions were legal. The President and the Secretary of Defense have stated unequivocally that they believe they acted within the law, and this is actually an issue that comes up repeatedly between the legislative and the executive branch. It has been coming up for a couple hundred years now. The administration's position is that they acted in accordance with their article II Commander in Chief authority in the interest of national security and in bringing one of our soldiers home, and it is their position that article II of the Constitution, which is a law, supersedes the piece of legislation that was referenced about 30 days' notice that was passed, and therefore, their actions were legal. The first thing to really understand about this is that this is in no way unprecedented. I am sure if we went back and examined the history, just about every President at one time or another did something contrary to a piece of legislation or a law because they felt article II required them to do so. They felt article II--the Constitution, which is a law--superseded the legislation in question. In fact, we don't have to go back very far. President George W. Bush repeatedly took actions that were in violation of the clear law post-9/ 11. He basically authorized warrantless wiretapping. He authorized indefinite detention. Both of those issues were clearly contrary to statutory law, but President Bush asserted his article II authority and said that, therefore, it was legal to do that. Go back to Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus in the same way. This is a long-running debate between the legislative and the executive branch, and never before has the legislative branch stepped out with legislation like this to censure the President. So, number one, the President did not violate the law. He followed what he felt was article II of the Constitution, perfectly consistent with what George W. Bush and a whole lot of other folks did, so I think it is wrong to call him out and say that he violated the law when this is simply part of a long-running debate between the legislative and the executive branch. Now, let me say I feel that the President should have given us 30 days' notice. I do believe that. Now, the reason that they didn't is because they were concerned that the information would be leaked. This was a very sensitive negotiation, and they were told that if the information was leaked, it would kill the deal, and they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health and that if any further delay happened, that he might not survive his current incarceration with the Taliban, so that was their reason for doing it. While I have said and will continue to say that I think he should have given us that 30 days' notice, that I think Congress has proven repeatedly that we can, in fact, keep a secret--we have been told about a number of very sensitive things and have not revealed that information. I think it is worth noting that the President isn't completely without reason for that. In fact, Senator Saxby Chambliss, after this was revealed, was asked, ``Well, if you had known about this, what would you have done?'' He initially said, ``Well, I would have let people know, absolutely, because I didn't think it was a good idea, and I would have done everything I could to stop it.'' Now, after having been explained that that is exactly why the President was reluctant to tell Congress, the Senator walked himself back from those remarks and said that he wouldn't, but his initial reaction sort of shows that the President and the administration were not completely out of bounds in thinking that their ability to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home might have been jeopardized by allowing Congress to know that. Be that as it may, I think they should have. I think we have proven ourselves capable of keeping secrets, and they should have given us 30 days' notice, but on the legality question, this is perfectly consistent with what a large number of Presidents have done in the past. So to call this President out specifically, I think, is wrong, which brings us to the second issue, and that is the partisan nature of this body. Now, it is not unique to this body. Regrettably, if you go back and you look at instances where the President is of one party and the Congress is of another, that is when investigations are off the charts. Somehow, when both the President and the Congress are in the same party, we don't have anywhere near the condemnation, anywhere near the investigation for actions, on and on and on; and that regrettably reflects the deepening partisan rift in Washington, D.C. That ultimately is what I think this legislation reflects. It is simply an opportunity for a Republican Congress to take a shot at a Democratic President. If it was more than that, then back 10 years ago, when President George W. Bush was violating all manner of different statutory law under his articulated article II powers, then we would have had something out of this Congress that said, ``Hey, don't do that.'' We didn't. All we had was silence. Now, unfortunately, what that leads the public to believe is that this is a partisan exercise, and we need fewer partisan exercises, not more. I think it is perfectly appropriate for many Members, as I did and others, to say the President should have given us notice. He should have given us 30 days. For this to be the first--or I guess the second issue, since we had the water bill just before this--that we take up when we come back from recess, when you think of all the economic and national security challenges and everything that is going on out there, I think once again makes the public just shake their head and say, ``Here we go again, another partisan exercise.'' Unfortunately, I think this piece of legislation is unnecessary, and I think it further poisons the well between Congress and the President. Again, I do not feel that the President violated the law. He had a different interpretation of it, as many Presidents before him have. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would again note that it is not a matter of speeding. It would be as if someone were stopped for speeding and said that there is no posted speed limit, how are you saying that I was speeding? That is the argument. It is the argument a number of Presidents have made, that their article II authority for national security purposes gives them the legal right to do this. I would also note that in a couple hundred years of history, no court has ever said otherwise, has ever reversed one of these decisions by the President. So this notion that the President knew he was breaking the law and just did it, and comparing it to two wrongs don't make a right or people speeding, it is the President's opinion--and, by the way, not just this President, but every President that I am aware of, including, again, George W. Bush, that this is not a violation of the law, this is not speeding, because of his article II authority. So it is not a matter of simply saying, well, he broke the law but if someone else did it, it is okay. It is arguing that none of those people actually broke the law. That is the argument in the debate. As far as the bill itself, yes, the President was very much aware of it, that it was in that bill when he signed the bill, and it was part of a much larger bill. It was part of the National Defense Authorization Act. When he signed that bill, he noted: ``I disagree with this portion. I think it has the potential to violate my article II authority.'' So he absolutely noticed that it was in there and gave us notice that he did not feel that it would legally bind him in certain circumstances. Again, it is a debatable point. All I know is that in a couple hundred years of history, the Presidents, all of them, have won that debate. And now here we stand today saying that this one President somehow uniquely should be condemned for doing what all before him have done and what all courts have said is perfectly okay. So, again, I find this to be more partisan than substantive. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and also to the bill that will follow. We have a humanitarian crisis on our border in this country, and neither this bill and certainly not the next bill on DACA does anything to address it. These children are fleeing unimaginable violence and fleeing a life that they simply can no longer bear. It is not a problem of border security. These children are turning themselves in. They are simply fleeing the violence in their home countries, and they are not just coming to the United States. Belize, Costa Rica, and other countries have seen an uptick from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras because of the unimaginable violence there. Instead of dealing with this, we have a bill that is hopelessly inadequate in terms of funding. We will not provide enough judges and enough people to give these children the due process they deserve, and even worse than that, we are stripping them of any rights and any protections by sending them back as quickly as possible without the due process that this House voted for in 2008, was signed by President Bush, that gave these children the due process they deserve. Then we are going one step further to undermine the ability of children who were brought into this country through no fault of their own, the DREAMers that we have long supported, and we are telling them that now they will not be allowed to stay in this country. This is a humanitarian crisis, not a border security issue. I urge us to vote down both of these pieces of legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 23 and Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 339 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1044), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 340 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 316), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 341 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 636), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 342 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 636), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 343 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 4413), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 344 (on agreeing to the Waters amendment to H.R. 4413), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 345 (on agreeing to the Moore amendment to H.R. 4413), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 346 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 4413), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 347 (on agreeing to the Garrett amendment to H.R. 4413), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 348 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4413 with instructions), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 349 (on passage of H.R. 4413), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 350 (on agreeing to the Pallone amendment to H.R. 3301), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 351 (on agreeing to the Waxman amendment to H.R. 3301), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 352 (on agreeing to the Welch amendment to H.R. 3301), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 353 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3301 with instructions), and ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 354 (on passage of H.R. 3301).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career and retirement of Ruth Clapp, a loyal public servant to the constituents of Washington's Ninth Congressional District dating back to the 1990s. As a Member of Congress, the importance of a strong caseworker staff cannot be understated. Often times, when constituents have exhausted all other avenues they call their Congressional representatives for help. For caseworkers, these constituent contacts are unique in nature, necessitating short turnarounds and requiring a discerning mind. After just a few months in Congress it became clear that our staff was missing something; or, more accurately, someone. The residents of the Ninth needed someone with a background in State Department issues. The job would be part-time and--like all caseworker positions--required a genuine passion for helping others. At the time, Ruth Clapp was enjoying the early days of her retirement after years spent working for the World Association for Children and Parents (WACAP), an adoption and international humanitarian organization. During her time with WACAP, Ruth helped families to navigate adoptions in countries around the world. The work was rewarding, yet it was time to enjoy some well-earned quiet days at her picturesque home along the water in Browns Point. And that was when the phone rang. On the other end was a young Chief of Staff. He let Ruth know about a freshman Member of Washington State's delegation that required someone with her background. The job could be tailored to her needs: it would be part-time and only for a few years. She accepted the position and, as we know now, that ``temporary'' job stretched into seventeen years of service. Ruth's personnel file grew and grew over the years, into what today resembles a stack of phone books. It is filled with hundreds of letters thanking her for help with issues including immigration, adoptions, and visas. These notes are from mothers, fathers, grandmothers, sons, and daughters. They recount Ruth creatively solving problems and demonstrate the consistency by which she went the extra mile for constituents. If getting a problem solved meant calling a consulate at 4 am on behalf of a constituent, that was what she did--gladly and without complaint. Ruth's accomplishments are too many to list. Highlights include the critical assistance she provided an entire Afghan family to become U.S. citizens. She is passionate about conditions at the Northwest Detention Center and has provided assistance to dozens of inmates there. Travel up and down the Ninth District and chances are you will meet someone whose life has benefited from Ruth's service. In the years ahead, Ruth undoubtedly will stay busy. She remains passionate about international adoption, loves world travel, serves on the board of a non-profit, and is a proud grandmother. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Ruth Clapp for her distinguished career. I am confident that others will continue to benefit from her selflessness.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 28, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 241 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 599); and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 242 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 503, as amended).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound gratitude that I rise to congratulate Norman B. Rice on his retirement after a distinguished tenure as President of The Seattle Foundation. Norm has contributed immeasurably to the Seattle community through a variety of roles over the last forty years. First elected to the Seattle City Council in 1978, Norm went on to serve on the Council for eleven years. Throughout his tenure, he was a champion for the marginalized, including fighting for the passage of the Women and Minority Business Enterprise Ordinance. After winning the 1989 mayoral election, Norm became the first African-American mayor in Seattle's history. His two terms were characterized by his drive to create a thriving Seattle that worked for all of its citizens. Norm's initiatives as mayor included rejuvenating downtown, enhancing Seattle's public school system, and developing public-private partnerships to serve Seattle's homeless population. His service as mayor has left a legacy that will endure well into the future. Since the conclusion of his tenure as an elected official, Norm has continued to work tirelessly for the well-being of the Seattle area. Since June of 2009, he has held the position of CEO of the Seattle Foundation. As a leader of one of the largest community foundations in the nation, Norm has been praised for his commitment to community development and his ability to build consensus. Norm has used these skills on the national stage as well, serving a two year appointment on the White House's Council for Community Solutions. Norm's service has benefitted many individuals and families, both in Seattle and across the country. His vision for just communities and selfless commitment to public service has left a legacy for future generations to follow. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to recognize Norman B. Rice. We all owe him the utmost gratitude and respect, and I wish him well in all future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound admiration that I rise to congratulate Teresita Batayola on being honored as a White House Champion of Change. Teresita has been an advocate for the Puget Sound region's Asian-American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) community for many years and is incredibly deserving of this award. Since the beginning of her tenure as CEO of International Community Health Services (ICHS) in July of 2005, Teresita has worked tirelessly to ensure that the healthcare needs of the AAPI community are met. She has overseen the opening of new clinics in Bellevue and the Rainier Valley, and developed a mobile dental clinic that visits Seattle area middle and high schools. Each year ICHS serves over 19,000 patients in 50 languages, a feat that I am confident would not be possible without Teresita's commitment to understanding the needs and dynamics of the communities her organization serves. This commitment has taken on a new and innovative form in the last year as ICHS has worked to help AAPI communities in the Seattle area access the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Under Teresita's leadership, ICHS has enrolled over 5,800 individuals in health plans through their multi-lingual and multi-cultural in-person assister team. This effort to provide culturally appropriate healthcare assistance will have a deep impact on the health and wellbeing of these communities for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect to honor Teresita Batayola. She has truly made our community a healthier and more just place, and I wish her and her organization well in the future.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I concur in support for the en bloc amendments. This is the last amendment, and I just want to say thank you again to Chairman McKeon. I think it is right that this bill is named after him. As I have said, he has done a fabulous job on our committee. I appreciate his hard work and for, once again, putting together this product. I also want to thank the staff. This is a very large bill. Lots of amendments are offered both on the committee level and on the House level. Staff has to pour through all of that and make sense of it and keep us informed. They do an incredible job and an incredible service to our country and to the men and women who serve in the military by making sure that this bill gets done every year, so I very much appreciate that. I want to particularly recognize Debra Wada from the HASC staff, who will soon be leaving us. She has been promoted to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Debra has served for 15 years as staff on this committee and as an invaluable source of knowledge on personnel and on many, many other issues. It has been great working with her. We congratulate her on her appointment and wish her the best. Again, she is but one example of an absolutely fantastic staff and of the great work that they do to put this product together every single year. So we thank you. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I concur. We should adopt the en bloc amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I concur with the chairman that we should pass the en bloc amendment. I have no speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the chairman we should adopt the en bloc amendments. I did want to take a moment here--we don't have any speakers on this--to make a couple comments about some Rules Committee decisions that I have not had a chance to speak about before. Overall, I applaud the product that we have crated here in a bipartisan way. I thank the chairman for doing that. I do think it is a fortunate the Rules Committee ruled out of order a number of amendments. Two of them were mine. One was to offer a BRAC amendment to give Members of Congress a chance to vote on it. The other was to offer up the administration's proposal to lay up 14 Navy vessels as an effort to save money. There are several problems with the fact that these amendments were ruled out of order, and the biggest one is one of the arguments that I have made of concern about this bill from the very beginning, because even though I support the product and there are a lot of very good things in this bill, I think the weakness of it and the thing that we are going have to confront when we go to conference is the fact that it delays every single difficult decision. During the debate and during general debate yesterday, a couple of people commented that they liked the bill for a variety of different reasons and said that it made some tough choices. I asked a couple of times to name one. I don't believe we did make a tough choice. When you look at the issues that we face in terms of the budget, we ducked every single one of them. We have both sequestrations for another 8 years. Even if sequestration doesn't come, we also have substantial cuts coming to the defense budget as a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and a series of CRs and a series of cuts to the defense budget that we did not anticipate. We are going to have substantially less money over the course of the next 10 years for defense than we thought we were going to have. That is true even if sequestration goes away. If sequestration happens, we really face a challenge. So the question is how are we going to restructure our defense plans to deal with the fact that we are going to have substantially less money than we had going forward. The answer in this bill is we are not going to deal with it this year, and we are going to hope things get better and maybe deal with it next year. The administration confronted this problem in a number of areas. I will walk through them. Number one, in the very controversial and difficult area of personnel costs, they found savings in health care by expanding what servicemembers would have to pay for their health care, they reduced somewhat the subsidy to our commissaries, they reduced the housing subsidy, and they also reduced the pay raise down to 1 percent and got rid of it for senior officers. Except for the last part of that, we ducked all of those. That is $2 billion over 5 years that the administration was able to save. Nothing was offered, nothing was done on our part to deal with that. In the Guard and Reserve, the Army has put together a plan to restructure their helicopters in a way that is way too complicated to explain, but that saves $12 billion over the course of 5 years. We put into our bill an amendment saying they can't do that at all in 2015. Also added in one of the en bloc amendments was an amendment now that says we are going to study it for a longer period of time even beyond that--that is another $12 billion--and we don't make it up anywhere because that is over 5 years, so we can get away with that in 2015. I mentioned the Navy issue: 14 ships that the Navy has said they will lay up in order to save money. That is roughly $3.5 billion that they will save. Again, we got rid of that in order to pay for it in the short- term. We didn't come up with more money or cut something else. We raided the ship modernization accounts to fund that in the short term, which again does not deal or address the problem. DOD also proposed getting rid of the A-10 and getting rid of the U-2. We stopped them from doing both of those things. We have at every turn blocked just about every single proposal the administration has made to save money over the long-term. In each one of those isolated incidents, there are strong arguments that tend to be mostly parochial. In other words, if it is in your district or in your neighborhood then you rise up in furious anger against it, but there may be arguments as to why that isn't the best choice. But there was no alternative proposed. We simply got creative in our accounting to get through 2015. These are mostly 5-year savings, so we can sort of stagger our way through 2015 and create a massive bow wave down the road that we are not at all prepared to deal with. I am sorry I left out the big one: BRAC. It is estimated we are wasting $6 billion a year on facilities that we don't need. Absolutely the only argument that exists against doing another BRAC round, given how much we have drawn down our force structure and the fact that the military estimates that they are 25 percent over capacity in terms of their facilities, is that Members don't want to run the risk of having a base be closed in their district. I get that. There are a ton of bases in the State of Washington. But we have to confront these issues because the money is not going to magically appear. So the amendments that were disallowed, I was hoping to have the opportunity on those two amendments to have the broader debate about making the choices now. I don't think we should simply rubberstamp what the White House has done. If we don't like those cuts, let's come up with another one. This is the conversation I had with my adjutant general in the State of Washington, who was concerned about the cuts to the Army Guard and the Air Force Guard. He was talking about everything he didn't like about it. I said: Look, present me an alternative, give us an alternative that says here is how we are going to save $12 billion instead, and I am happy to look at it. But just to say: We don't like the cuts, I get that. Nobody--well, there are some. Most people don't like the cuts, but they are there. We passed the Budget Control Act, we shut down the government, we passed the budget agreement last year that set the levels for FY14 and FY15, and we still have on the books 8 more years of sequestration. If Congress doesn't want the administration to wind up making all these choices, then we have got to step up and make the decisions now rationally about where we are going to be in terms of the budget. The final point I will make on that is that what happens when we don't make those decisions is that readiness gets cut. In this bill, readiness is cut by $1.2 billion from the President's request. Plus, there is another $633 billion that we take out of OCO to fund the A-10. That is probably readiness as well, because they use the OCO account to backfill some of the cuts in readiness. So that is $1.8 billion out of the readiness account that was already depleted because of the shutdowns, because of the CRs. Well, what is readiness? We had an interesting discussion about this in committee. Readiness is not the size of the force. Readiness is the capability of the force. Are the troops trained and equipped to perform the missions that we have asked them to do? The chairman has quite eloquently on a number of occasions pointed to past wars: the Korean war and World War II, where we had to ramp up in a hurry and we sent troops over who were not ready to fight, and many of them were killed and injured because they were not ready to fight. If we raid readiness accounts to protect personnel, to stop BRAC, to stop the Pentagon from cutting the U-2 or the A-10, or from shutting down a Guard unit, if we do that they've got to raid readiness, because that is the easiest thing to do. You spend less on fuel, you don't repair some equipment that is out there, you fly less, you drive less, you train less. What we wind up with is the hollow force that nobody wants. So as we go into conference and as we go forward, it is an obligation of this Congress to say: What is our plan? Right now our plan is hope. I didn't serve in the military, but I heard very early on in my time on the Armed Services Committee one of the sayings in the military is ``hope is not a strategy.'' We are hoping that the money will appear, we are hoping that somehow we magically won't have to make those decisions. I think we are past that point. The decisions are going to get made. They are either going to get made poorly if we ignore them, or preferably they will get made well so that we do our best to put together a force that no matter the size is at least capable and ready to perform the missions that we might ask of them. So ruling those amendments out of order I think was most unfortunate--that we weren't able to have that debate. But rest assured, as the chairman has pointed out, this is his last term, so I would say there is no ducking this, but I guess you can retire. You won't be here. But the country will have to deal with those decisions one way or the other, and we thus far have not made them. So I would urge us to start looking at this and saying if we are not going to do a BRAC, then what are we going to do. If we are not going to shrink the Guard this way, then what are we going to do. Let's get some concrete proposals on the table that are something other than, don't cut anything in my backyard, and closing our eyes and hoping that the problem will go away. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.